freightdawg

Grrrrreat - just what we need now. From what I understand, this wouldn't have solved the TWA800 incident anyway.

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY 7/16/2008
WASHINGTON — The federal government today plans to require that the safety of thousands of airline jet fuel tanks be upgraded to prevent explosions like the one that downed TWA Flight 800 in 1996, government and industry sources told USA TODAY.
After more than a decade of sometimes bitter debate, the Department of Transportation will mandate that most large jets have a system to flush explosive gases from the center fuel tank, said several sources who have direct knowledge of the new rule. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about the rule before the announcement.
The Federal Aviation Administration rule comes one day before the 12th anniversary of the crash. The Transportation Department and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced Tuesday a rare joint safety briefing today but gave no details.
The announcement is scheduled to be held in a Virginia hangar holding the twisted wreckage of TWA 800's center section, which was reconstructed during the investigation. The Boeing 747-100 was flying from New York to Paris when it exploded off Long Island, killing all 230 people aboard.
The NTSB concluded in 2000 that heated, highly explosive fumes in the 747's center tank ignited and that most other large jets were vulnerable to such explosions. The NTSB's recommendation that all jets be equipped with a device to snuff out flames in fuel tanks. Airlines opposed the plan, arguing it was too expensive.

An FAA scientist in 2002 found that a relatively inexpensive device could blanket fuel tanks with nitrogen gas to prevent explosions. The White House's Office of Management and Budget, which must sign off on federal rules, last month said it had approved a fuel tank rule.
Airlines will have up to 10 years to equip their fleets with the devices, the sources said. Jets built before 1991, many of which will be retired within 10 years, will be exempt. New jets also must have the safety equipment.
The rule applies to more than 3,000 jets used by U.S. airlines, including Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 models and all Airbus models, the sources said. In 2004, the FAA estimated it would cost up to $700 million to retrofit existing jets. The rule comes as airlines are cutting flights, raising fares, grounding planes and losing billions of dollars because of soaring fuel costs and a weak economy.

Trash Hauler 1

Don't worry. Cargo aircraft will be exempt. "No appreciable loss of life" or something like that.

TH1

Luckydawg

Oh gee! I'll feel so much safer now! I've been sooo worried these last 12 years from my fuel tanks exploding !
























Not!

freightdawg

From the AP wire release:

"Joan Lowy, ASHBURN, Va. (AP) —
The rule also requires airlines to retrofit 2,730 existing Airbus and Boeing passenger planes over the next nine years with center wing fuel tanks with the changes. The retrofit schedule is based on the normal aircraft maintenance schedule."

Soooooo, it can't happen on cargo aircraft, apparently....

What was that the Feds were working on? "one level of safety"?

Nitefrater

The feds aren't working on "One Level of Safety".... ALPA is. One more success story in long string lately.

BoxDawg

freightdawg this is God, be advised we have a BoxDawg on frequency.

III Corps

There has been an ongoing debate about whether inerting is needed and if installed if it is, does it do the job intended. Many say it is not and except for TWA 800, there have been almost no accidents attributed to fuel tanks exploding in flight. This may be just an added cost to flying that does not provide bang for the buck. At an estimated $100k per airplane, the airlines are not exactly fat with money to implement this but should an airplane crash and when lawyers find the tanks were not 'inerted' there is going to be hell to pay.

Can't afford to do it.. can't afford to not do it...

KnightFlyer

The cost of installing the new technology would range from $92,000 to $311,000 per aircraft, depending upon its size, Peters said. She said the cost could be as little as one-tenth of 1 percent of the cost of a new aircraft.

FAA Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell estimated the cost to industry overall at about $1 billion.

Initial estimates a decade ago put the potential cost of protecting fuel tanks from explosion as high as $36 billion.

"I recognize that this is a challenging time for commercial aviation," Peters said. "But there is no doubt that another crash like TWA 800 would pose a far greater challenge."

The rule doesn't require that existing cargo planes be retrofitted because of the cost, said John Hickey, FAA director of aircraft certification.

"We think the overall risk (for cargo planes) in a general way is a little bit less. Of course the cost is very significant to the rule and the benefits — it's a bit challenging to quantify the benefits aside from the obvious benefit of the value of the pilots," Hickey said.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which represents FAA aircraft certification engineers, released a statement saying it was disappointed that the new rule applies only to center fuel tanks and not to wing fuel tanks. The controllers association and NTSB had recommended that the safety changes apply to all fuel tanks.

"The FAA missed an opportunity to greatly enhance airplane safety without significant additional cost," the statement said.

MoosePileit

Assuming this is either the high pressure tank version or the lighter membrane version of what we have in the C-17- it will be quite the joke to watch the feet dragging. Though costly up front- it's a maintenance intensive system, and not lightweight.... The triple threat kiss of death. Not sure how much smaller it could be inerting just center/fuselage tanks. A C-17 has lots of underfloor: non-payload, non fuel space- and it's not a lightweight on the scales anyway.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

…so are you saying a missile brought the TWA800 down? or was it a meteorite? If not, shouldn't we all worry? Even though there's only 1 chance in a million, why not worry? Educate me as I'm not sure what your comment means...

Also, as always, anytime things are deemed important enough to potentially save lives, they always exempt freighters, that's bs in my view... Either do it on all airplanes or don't do it at all...